October 26th, 2007
09:00 PM ET
15 years ago

'08 Dems trade barbs over Iran

Watch Candy Crowley in the Situation Room Friday.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is heating up as Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York; Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois; and John Edwards, D-North Carolina, turn their attention to U.S. policy toward Iran. Watch Candy Crowley explain what the three Democrats have been saying about the Middle Eastern country.

Related: Iran becoming new Iraq on campaign trail

Click here to see CNN's new political portal: CNNPolitics.com

Filed under: Candidate Barack Obama • Hillary Clinton • Iran • Iraq • John Edwards • The Situation Room
soundoff (42 Responses)
  1. sean metamora,IL

    It is a myth to state that Iran supports Al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden and his gang of criminals are Shiite. Iran is predominantly Sunni Wahhabist.

    brian, i believe you have that backwards,

    iran is shiite and osama, a saudi is the wahhabist sunni

    October 27, 2007 04:08 pm at 4:08 pm |
  2. sean metamora,IL

    We have to do something about Iran before they do something to us.
    Posted By the monster masher, philadelphia, pa. : October 27, 2007 1:44 pm

    pre emptive action is immoral,
    using that logic why not round up all the poor before they rob you.
    or hey that guy looked at me, i better attack him before he attacks me

    October 27, 2007 04:24 pm at 4:24 pm |
  3. Uriew, CA

    This is for Dawn:

    “I’ve been amused by seeing some of the commentary out of the Clinton camp, where every time we point out a difference between me and her, they say, ‘What happened to the politics of hope?’ which is just silly,” he said, laughing.

    Asked why it was silly, he responded: “The notion that somehow changing the tone means simply that we let them say whatever they want to say or that there are no disagreements and that we’re all holding hands and singing ‘Kumbaya’ is obviously not what I had in mind and not how I function. And anybody who thinks I have, hasn’t been paying attention.”

    Prepare for the next phase of the campaign!

    October 27, 2007 04:28 pm at 4:28 pm |
  4. Brian P Lenac, Everett WA

    Thanks for the correction Sean, you're absolutely right.

    I got so irate listening to that dribble above I must have turned semi-dyslexic for a moment.

    October 27, 2007 04:32 pm at 4:32 pm |
  5. dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD.

    Uriew, CA:

    It is indeed no violation of the "politics of hope," for Sen. Obama to point out genuine differences between Sen. Clinton and himself. However, it is more political than hopeful to manufacture such differences, e.g., by saying that Kyl-Lieberman gives a "blank check" to the President for invading Iran when it does no such thing.

    And ditto when, to enable his attacks on Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama runs away from his own past positions favoring the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, or endorsing the use of U.S. forces to combat Iranian forces in Iran.

    October 27, 2007 04:45 pm at 4:45 pm |
  6. Wynter, Loudon, NH

    The Iran issue should be playing a much larger role in the run up to the election. The reason being that the Republican Candidates are posturing to appear the toughest one on dealing with Iran. Even the Democrats are trying to not appear weak when it comes to dealing with this tough situation.

    The problem is where do you put yourself? If you go too soft it makes the Conservatives feel like you will let Iran politically takeover the Middle East and strong arm themselves into being a World Power.

    On the other hand, if you go too strong it will make another war on the horizon imminent. And the public at large, if polled today, would be highly resistant to another front on the war on terror.

    So where are the candidates going to put themselves on Iran? Romney is already committing our forces to taking out Iran's nuclear sites. And Clinton is so far only calling for sanctions and saying no to any military action at this time. All the others seem to be playing it cautious on the run up to the primary.

    It's time to ask your candidates their position....

    "Would you commit our forces to attack Iran or would you diplomatically contain them with sanctions?"

    Their answers should be enlightening no matter what side of the aisle you are on.

    (Personally, I'd like to see polling stats on this question.)

    Telling it like I see it,

    October 27, 2007 05:04 pm at 5:04 pm |
  7. TheInsider

    Why is it that Clinton does not want to disclose how many donors she has.

    You know nothing...

    ...Even when I have given you the link. I read your angry, unfocused, willfully uninformed reply with amusement and pity.
    Everyone's donors are in the public record. Repeating propaganda from RNC websites (garbling it actually) and long discredited convicted felons is unworthy of a democrat, and becoming typical of the disappointed, angry Obama supporter.
    The more you attack Clinton, the more you turn off your fellow democrats, something Obama himself hasn't done. That's because he isn't stupid and if he isn't the nominee, he still wants a place in the party. Too bad his supporters aren't as savvy.

    October 27, 2007 05:15 pm at 5:15 pm |
  8. Kim, Peabody MA

    Are the NUTS? Why in the world do they insist on negotiating with our Enemies?

    There are much better solutions. Check out:

    October 27, 2007 06:22 pm at 6:22 pm |
  9. Sarah

    Kim from Peabody, MA

    Those of us who are old enough to have children who could be drafted for an unneccessary war want our government to negotiate with our enemies.

    The parents, wives, husbands and children of the more than 3000 killed in Iraq would have rather we negotiated a solution.

    The 24,000 with amputations and traumatic brain injuries from combat with Iraq would rather we negotiate with our enemies.

    So as you sit in your comfortable home, wondering why we negotiate with our enemies, maybe you can think of those who have died for you to have that freedom. And if you have or ever have children, you will know that you don't want them to die in a foreign land for a cause that could have been handled in a non-violent way.

    October 27, 2007 07:07 pm at 7:07 pm |
  10. Uriew, CA

    Cmon. I just looked at taht website. Instead of getting upset, PLEASE, tell me how mnay total donors Hillary has to date. I can openly say Obama has more than 365000 donors, will you humor me and tell me how many Clinton has? This is not a Republican vs Democrat issue and that is one of the things that will send Hillary's campaign to an early grave, always thinking in terms of us vs them, so that RNC comment you made just signifies how good a student you are of Hillary. She has helped you perfect the art of partisanship. Just listen to Bill Clinton make a stupid joke about "naked " Republicans at the Bohemian Club and that justifies how divisive many in the Clinton camp are! Of course Peter Paul was discredited by Hillary only after she had willfully spent her money, and now she thinks he is not worthy to be a democrat, give me a break! Dont tell me that BS about not attacking Hillary, we are just clarifying differences. It is you and the media who Hillary seems to have at teh back of her pocket who think that clarifying a difference is an attack. And by the way, who told you I am a democrat, do you think that everybody who supports Obama is a democrat. Cmon, how divisive thinking. But I can promise you 99% of Hillary supporters are democrats coz Republicans cannot wait to chew her up.

    October 27, 2007 07:29 pm at 7:29 pm |
  11. Kim, Dallas, TX

    It's time to shed some light on Obama's stance against Iran, since I see so many misinformed readers. He has lead the government's response as to how to deal with Iran. He does not want military action and let it be known that he was against the Kyl Lieberman Act; which Hillary voted for, seems she learned nothing from the Iraq vote in 2003. Obama could not make it to the vote, but let it be known ahead of time that he stands firmly against it. His vote would not have made a tie breaking difference anyway. Seems we have many blind sheep in Washington still.

    Take some time to read and become informed:

    8. Having Iran as “His Issue”

    Marsh wonders– if preventing an Iran war was so important to Obama, why didn’t he show up and have it as “his issue”? This is even more interesting because before this Kyl-Lieberman vote, Barack Obama was already out there talking about the need for economic sanctions and diplomacy, not military action. He has made numerous statements before the vote about this issue. See:

    9/12/07: Obama to Bush: You Don’t Have Our Authorization for War with Iran
    8/30/07: Barack Obama Editorial: Hit Iran Where It Hurts
    8/29/07: Alabama Senator Blocking Obama’s Iran Divestment Bill
    7/31/07: Obama Urges Swift Passage of Iran Divestment Bill
    5/17/07: Barack Obama Introduces Iran Divestment Bill

    Therefore, Obama is not a Johnny-come-lately on this issue. He has the right to speak out about it since he has been a public voice on it prior to the Kyl-Lieberman vote in late September.

    Some bloggers are more concerned about a candidate who couldn’t get back in time for a vote, but took a clear position on it rather than with the possibility that Hillary’s vote could potentially be used by Bush to take us into war with Iran.

    October 27, 2007 11:43 pm at 11:43 pm |
  12. Meks, Florida

    Uriew, CA:

    It is obvious you are retarded. What has 365000 donors got to do with an election by 100 million people. If the number of donors is basis for winning, Howard Dean would have been in the ticket. Did you notice that the moment Clinton's campaign announce over 100,000 donors in the last quarter Obama stopped touting having more donors for the quarter because he has been outnumbered for that quarter. He now moved to 'i have more number of donors' slogan. I bet you if Mrs Clinton passes his donor number, he will change to another slogan. Does she need more number of donors? No, she does not. These are a matter of campaign strategies and she initially had no intention to go to the mass market until the media and obama's campaign wanted to use that as a talking point. She blew them away last quarter to the point that for the first few days the media and obama web bloggers could not find a talking point. Have you not noticed he has toned down on that rhetorics- he could not as usual say i have more donors this quarter than Mrs Clinton. Anyway lets move to some other things. Why is he on the offensive? If you think you are doing well, why do you need mistating another candidate's position just to score points at her back? Advise Obama to raise those false information on tuesday's debate so all of us will see how far he can defend those fabricated lies. It is easy to cast aspersion and distort someone statement at his/her back, let us see him say the same thing in her presence.
    You are talking about campaign scandal, eh? Look up the discovery that he has gotten millions of dollars on underage contribution, infants and children ranging from 6 months to 11 years. This was published in Washington Post on tuesday with the absurd responses of the families and person's involved in the scandal. Many one year old infants donating $2300. What a joke! What happened to the story, the leftwing loons, the media and David Gaffen with his vested interest in the media made sure the story was contained with no major TV political commentators (Chris Matthews, Tim russert, Tucker, etc) carrying the story except Fox noise. Also remember the FEC has asked his campaign to comments on how they came down from $52,000 in hotel accomodation in 2nd qtr to less than $8,000 in 3rd qtr and they quickly issued a statement they had a series of bad accounting which is why till date he has not reported his full expenses. Can we dictate enron here? Somebody seemed to be doctoring the books to remain in contention at least financially? If only you guys will realize he has absolutely 0% chance of winning 08. Which state did Al Gore or Kerry lose that he will win to deliver WH. zero. nada. The worst thing is that the guy is fluke, calibrated, cunning and obviously has no substance though he is well educated.

    October 28, 2007 12:13 am at 12:13 am |
  13. Uriew, CA

    Meks from Florida,
    Boy have you been busy. Looks like you have taken the reins from TheInsider. You are Hillary's intern covering for TheInsider. I am asking a simple question, i dont care if it does not matter, i want you an TheInsider to tell me exactly how many donors Hillary has to date, that is all I ask, get busy and figure it out. Why dont you tell Hillary too to come up with another slogan other than that "what happened to the politics of hope" BS whenever asked a difficult question. you are right she does not need more donors coz she has enough lobbyists and special interests groups ready to cough up $2300 max donations so that they can get favors when she is elected. When we talk about the donors in Obama's campaign, they are not just donating but giving lots of input to the campaign in terms of ideas. i welcome you to come to the barackobama.com website and you will eb surprised at the intelligent blogs taking place. try posting something at hillaryclinton.com and see how much red tape it has to go through before the Clintonistas agree to publish it. He is not on the offensive, he knows that Clinton is trying to get away with BS by fooling the public and he will not let it happen. We will not let it happen, we have to clarify differences and trust me Obama is not just going to lay down and let Hillary say whatever she thinks she wants people to hear. I am sure you are really MAD that someone has guts to challenge someone like Hillary. Well welcome to a new dawn, you can now wake up from your dream. There is no mistating of Hillary's position on social security, coz guess what she has no position. How can you mistate a position that is non-existent. So now you think Obama is scared of Hillary and cannot bring it up in her presence at the Tuesday debate? Cmon, what politics of Fear are you spreading, just the perfect example of a Clintonsita. Oh, lets talk about campaign scandals, other than the Peter Paul issue, how about those poor chinese immigrants whose names appear as $2300 donations who actually dont live at their addresses that are listed? i am sure it is not hard to get a lot of media to publish something negative about Obama, you can see for yourself at all the spin off CNN does, maybe they will publish and distort that news as you want it, I am surprised they have not done it yet. Maybe coz it has not been approved yet by the Clintonistas, huh? Tell me about hiding info, why is it that Hillary does not want the memos while she was first lady to be released until after elections, and only if she wins, huh? Why does she accept PAC money almost $760,000 and Obama accepts not a single cent? Oh you wanna talk about Al Gore, do you think he would have won if the Clintons gave him some support? But no, Hillary was more concerned about 2008 and so Al Gore lost. I am sure it nakes you MAD as hell that someone who has been known for only about 4 years is giving the Clintons a run for their money, and trust me no amount of BS about Obama having zero chance to win is going to stop we the people from donating to someone who is not a puppet like Hillary that has strings being pulled by others coz she owes them favors. You wanna talk about cunning and a fluke? How about Hillary's cunning when she said she will not have her name in the Michigan ballot then she goes right ahead and puts it in unlike all her other democratic candidates. A fluke? how about thinking that coz she was the wife of a former president, visted more than 60 countries that means she qualifies to be president. Wanna talk about substance, go barackobama.com and you will find the substance of every issue important to the campaign. And trust me you will enjoy the intelligent conversations there. Welcome to a new phase of the campaign, some may not like it, but guess what TOO BAD!

    October 28, 2007 01:50 am at 1:50 am |
  14. Kim, Dallas, TX

    To Uriew in CA, thank you. It's nice to see that someone actually takes the time to know what they are talking about. I get so tired of people that just read the spin offs and don't know what is actually going on out there. If they think our government is going to be for the people again, they are so sadly misinformed by wanting Clinton in office. She is not, will never be Bill. We won't have the same thing going in Washington that we had when he was president. There is too much that is different now that Bush has done so much damage to our country. We need someone that is truly for the people and Obama gets my vote for that. This fear runs our country mentality just has to change or we won't recognize our country anymore.

    October 28, 2007 09:24 am at 9:24 am |

    To tell the truth and be a political candidate in the US today is almost impossible. To have someones trust is very important in this time and age. I don't feel that we have a real leader in either party, be it for president, sentor or congress. They only say what they think what you want to hear. They all vote they want and use your name. Wake up America, take back that is yours...this great country.

    October 28, 2007 11:44 am at 11:44 am |
  16. Optomist

    They should drop Bush and his adminisration out of a cargo plane right in the middle of Bagdad.

    October 28, 2007 05:03 pm at 5:03 pm |
  17. Jim Jensen


    October 29, 2007 12:14 am at 12:14 am |
1 2